« The case for Ratzinger |
| Who's happy today? »
Help your fellow Catholics: Post links, points to make when answering peoples' questions and fears about the new pope. Debunk some myths, get specific.
(By the way - Chris Matthews is at this moment singing his praises...)
Posted by Amy Welborn Dubruiel at 12:37 PM | Permalink
| Digg This
| Save to del.icio.us
Andrew Sullivan says:
"The swiftness of the decision and the polarizing nature of this selection foretell a coming civil war within Catholicism. The space for dissidence, previously tiny, is now extinct."
The Corner has the WWII Nazi Youth links you need.
EWTN's Ratzinger page.
April 19, 2005 at 12:48 PM
A few perhaps useful quotes at my site (click below), chosen partly for their power to challenge all of us, not just progressives.
Maclin Horton |
April 19, 2005 at 12:51 PM
As David R. posted on the Habemus Papam thread:
At cruxnews.com they reprinted an article from the Jerusalem Post debunking the Hitler Youth charge in short order.
April 19, 2005 at 12:53 PM
Jerusalem Post (LRR) opinion piece "Ratzinger a Nazi? Don't Believe It" written in response to the London Times article today.
I also read that the Anti-Defamation League issued a statement supporting Ratzinger although I cannot find it online.
April 19, 2005 at 12:54 PM
Ratzinger Fan Club website (temporarily down due to heavy traffic)
April 19, 2005 at 12:56 PM
Someone posted this link (in a thread below) to a Jerusalem Post article on Ratzinger's membership in the Hitler Youth -- just thought I'd move it up here to make sure everyone saw it:
April 19, 2005 at 12:56 PM
On my blog, C BS News says blessed be the bookmakers.
April 19, 2005 at 12:57 PM
Dominus Iesus would seem to be a must read:". . . If it is true that the followers of other religions can receive divine grace, it is also certain that objectively speaking they are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation."
As would the CDF instruction on Catholics in the Political Sphere " The history of the twentieth century demonstrates that those citizens were right who recognized the falsehood of relativism, and with it, the notion that there is no moral law rooted in the nature of the human person, which must govern our understanding of man, the common good and the state. . . .In this context, it must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals."
April 19, 2005 at 01:04 PM
He was inducted into the French Legion of Honor in 1998. Despite the caricatures by some, he's always been very respected by those who actually know him.
There's an archived story on the French commendation at CWNews:
Don Boyle |
April 19, 2005 at 01:05 PM
I find it funny that a lot of media are calling Pope Benedict 16 a "transitional" pope....aren't they all transitional really?
April 19, 2005 at 01:06 PM
As someone who is much more liberal than Andrew Sullivan (although, sadly, I am not gay), I am enjoying his (over)reaction. Why it's the end of Catholicism as we have known it since 1965. I know a lot of folks here even wish for that. Somehow I don't think that's what will happen over the next decade. But when Sullivan reacts, it's a contrary indicator, in my experience.
April 19, 2005 at 01:09 PM
Conservative Anglicans are ecstatic today because we now have a powerful friend:
Who makes up for the one we just lost:
Christopher Johnson |
April 19, 2005 at 01:09 PM
The Father O'Briens and Andrew Sullivans are figuratively going into fetal position, sucking their thumbs and holding their favourite blankies with the other hand. They will try to wait this one out, although a lot of JPII's critics did the same and didn't live to see the end of his papacy. May Benedictus enjoy a long and fruitful reign as Christ's Faithful Vicar.
frank sales |
April 19, 2005 at 01:25 PM
Poor Christopher Blosser, it looks like the server for the Ratzinger Fan Club has crashed. No doubt he and his father are both celebrating right now.
April 19, 2005 at 01:27 PM
'Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles dismissed the possibility of a Pope from such countries as France or Germany, where “practically nobody goes to church”.'
Fred K |
April 19, 2005 at 01:29 PM
I wonder if Mahony feels a chill...
john hearn |
April 19, 2005 at 01:32 PM
Nobody's happier than I am...but remember, he is no longer Ratzinger, so don't despair/exult based on what you think Ratzinger was.
Now he is Peter, he is Benedict XVI, and what he will be remains to be seen.
This is what I'd be telling myself if I'd been "disappointed" in the selection, and it's what I tell myself now that I'm elated by it.
John Heavrin |
April 19, 2005 at 01:41 PM
Much of the discussion of Pope Benedict has been on his role at the CDF. What MAY be more significant, however, are his numerous, thoughtful articles and books on the liturgy. One could argue that he has been the most thoughtful liturgical scholar at the Holy See during his time there--but ironically, he has not been in a position to do anything about it.
Now he can. Expect more support for the Tridentine Mass indult and celebration ad orientem. Certainly, expect STRONG papal leadership on restoring reverence to the Novus Ordo as celebrated in our parishes. This is the Year of the Eucharist, after all. How appropriate!
Don Boyle |
April 19, 2005 at 01:42 PM
I will try to keep a prayerful faith in the Holy Spirit's movement in the selection of Ratzinger as Pope. I will not deny my disappointment, though, as I think Ratzinger will be concerned more with heady and judgmental doctrinal purity than with the social injustice faced by the vast majority of the world's poor, marginalized, and oppressed.
But I will pray over the coming weeks and months for the grace to succumb to the will of the Spirit and to give Ratzinger the faithful loyalty he now commands.
Jimmy Huck |
April 19, 2005 at 01:43 PM
Jimmy, I think you may be in for some surprises about Benedict's views on social and economic matters--as may some of our conventional conservatives.
Hunk Hondo |
April 19, 2005 at 01:50 PM
Andrew Sullivan is having a hissy fit. Pray for that poor guy, he has lost all persepective as to what Sin is...
April 19, 2005 at 01:55 PM
I haven't read much of it yet...
April 19, 2005 at 01:56 PM
How can the Church be a real force for good in the world when it is full of disunity and disorder? Unity is the child of truth or it is a bastard.
john hearn |
April 19, 2005 at 01:57 PM
Rush Limbaugh is introducing himself by a new tag: "America's rottweiler."
April 19, 2005 at 01:57 PM
Interesting that I read (and now I can't remember where since I've been surfing so much) that he talked JPII out of proclaiming that the teaching on artificial contraception is a matter of infallible teaching. What do we make of that?
thomas tucker |
April 19, 2005 at 01:58 PM
"And the attack on individual political freedom is just beginning." -- Andrew Sullivan
Cheeky Lawyer |
April 19, 2005 at 01:58 PM
Paul Griffiths (Univ. if Illinois, Chicago) gives Cardinal R's new collection of essays, Truth and Tolerance, a very favorable review in the most recent issue of First Things.
April 19, 2005 at 02:00 PM
He probably convinced JP II that it did not need to be proclaimed as an infallible teaching since it was already infallible by being taught by the Ordinary Universal Magisterium.
Dave Mueller |
April 19, 2005 at 02:08 PM
Now that I've thought about it, and to answer my own question posed above, perhaps he felt like it was a matter already dealt with by the ordinary Magisterium, much as the issue of women's ordination is, and so not appropriate for an extraordinary proclamation.
thomas tucker |
April 19, 2005 at 02:10 PM
CBS Radio News this afternoon:
"There were tens of thousands cheering in the square below." Mm, hm.
"There were great debates reaching a one-word conclusion : continuity."
"His job under JPII as head of a committee formerly known as The Inquisition cast him in the role as chief of the Vatican's thought police and it's a role he assumed with relish."
An exact quote.
April 19, 2005 at 02:11 PM
Dave- our posts crossed. Apparently, great minds think alike; and so do ours.
thomas tucker |
April 19, 2005 at 02:15 PM
I think Ratzinger will be concerned more with heady and judgmental doctrinal purity than with the social injustice faced by the vast majority of the world's poor, marginalized, and oppressed.
I also think you will be a bit surprised on that score. Regardless, foundation needs to go up before the walls and roof. Our foundation has some serious settlement problems.
c matt |
April 19, 2005 at 02:18 PM
One must be patient, although I must confess an initial disappointment. But we should remember that Benedict XVI has written movingly of unity. His evocation of unity is often directed against the modern idea of freedom as a wandering "aimlessly into emptiness," but it can also be directed against an ecclesial perfectionism that is impatient with any sort of abiding together in concrete community. I do not believe that Benedict XVI will be a sectarian pope. I do not believe that he will try to get rid of what he may see as his weaker brothers and sisters.
As he has beautifully written about St Augustine:
"The Donatists had the same sacraments as the Catholic Church, so wherein lies the difference? What is wrong with the Donatists? Taking into account the prehistory of the division, as well as their contemporary form, Augustine responds that they have broken love. They have departed from the true faith because they have placed their own idea of perfection above unity. They have held on to everything that is part of the Catholic Church except that they gave up love when they gave up unity. Without love everything else is empty. The word caritas receives here a very concrete, ecclesiological meaning, and in fact, in Augustine's language it completely penetrates the concepts, for he says that the Church is love. This, in a sense, is a dogmatic thesis for him. As a creation of the Spirit, the Church is the body of the Lord built up by the pneuma, and thus also becomes the body of Christ when the pneuma forms men and women for 'communio.' This creation, this Church, is God's 'gift' in the world, and this 'gift' is love. But Augustine sees in this dogmatic thesis a concrete character as well. We cannot build up our Christian identity in sects, in isolation from others. Should this happen, the very soul of the whole would be missing even if one had all the individual parts. Accepting the entire community of believers belongs to Christian identity, i.e. humility, love (caritas), and bearing with one another, for otherwise the Holy Spirit, the one who unifies, would be missing. The dogmatic statement 'The Church is love' is not merely a dogmatic statement for the manuals, but refers to the dynamism that forms unity, a dynamism that is the force holding the Church together."
--- Joseph Ratzinger, "The Holy Spirit as Communio: Concerning the Relationship of Pneumatology and Spirituality in Augustine," Communio 25 (1998).
"Almighty Lord, no one can lay any foundation other than the one that has been laid. That foundation is Jesus Christ. We admit that we have not been able to finish building on this foundation in such a way that we may become the dwelling place of God. We have sometimes even been the cause of its ruin. Even if our work should be lost, save us, Lord and give us a fresh chance to work for unity. Create in us an ardent longing for the unity of your church and enable us to work towards it. Amen." (Week of Prayer for Christian Unity 2005, 'Opening Prayer').
May God bless Joseph Ratzinger with "an ardent longing for the unity" of the Catholic Church and all Christians, and enable him to work towards this unity. May the Spirit, "the one who unifies," never be "missing" from his pontificate.
April 19, 2005 at 02:22 PM
"great minds think alike, and so do ours."
No need to repeat yourself!! ;-)
Dave Mueller |
April 19, 2005 at 02:23 PM
"chief of the Vatican's thought police".
Can a layman like me become a detective in the Vatican's thought police? That sounds like a great gig.
Gregg the obscure |
April 19, 2005 at 02:23 PM
Wikipedia's entry on Ratzinger is informative about the Nazi youth allegation:
"Joseph Ratzinger was born in Marktl am Inn, in Bavaria, the son of a police officer who was staunchly anti-Nazi. In 1937 Ratzinger's father retired and settled in the town of Traunstein. When Ratzinger turned 14 in 1941, he was required by law to join the Hitler Youth, but according to his biographer John Allen he was not an enthusiastic member. He requested to be taken off the rolls and reportedly refused to attend a single meeting. In 1943, at the age of 16 he was, along with the rest of his class, drafted into the Flak or anti-aircraft corps, responsible for the guarding of a BMW plant outside Munich. He was then sent for basic infantry training and was posted to Hungary, where he worked setting up anti-tank defences until fleeing in April 1944 (an offense punishable by death). In 1945 he was briefly held in an Allied POW camp, where he attended de-Nazification classes. By June he was released, and he and his brother (Georg) entered a Catholic seminary."
But the Financial Times is not so sure:
"He has said in subsequent interviews that although he opposed the Nazis it was not possible to resist openly - a point contended by some historians."
Some? Who? Where?
April 19, 2005 at 02:24 PM
As an Orthodox Christian, I'd like to know what is his views about Eastern Orthodoxy.
April 19, 2005 at 02:24 PM
Thomas, you could be correct.
However, Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone (now Cardinal) penned an article about the ordinary magisterium in L'Osservatore Romano at the end of 1996 discussing the ordinary magisterium. Two years later, the CDF released a statement on this same topic, co-authored by Ratzinger and Bertone.
Both of these articles listed a few teachings, including moral doctrines, as being taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium. The immorality of artificial contraception was not one of them. Now, the CDF article explicity said this was not an attempt to make a complete list and that omission of something didn't mean it wasn't infallible.
And JP2's Evangelium Vitae states that teaching on abortion, euthanasia, and murder are taught infallibly by the OUM, but he does not make this claim about contraception.
These documents, plus the fact that Paul VI appointed the birth control commission in the first place, does suggest to me that these church leaders are not 100% convinced that this doctrine has been taught infallibly by the ordinary magisterium. I am phrasing this very carefully: they do believe this doctrine is true, and they may even believe it might have been taught infallibly.
By the way, the place you probably read that Ratzinger opposed an infallible declaration was in this article by Andrew Greeley.
Lawrence King |
April 19, 2005 at 02:28 PM
I wrote a paper on Ratzinger's ecclesiology in college. I can't say that it is of great theological depth or even a great piece of writing (if I recall correctly I was cramming to finish it) but it has a biographical sketch and quotes quite a bit from his work on communio. If anyone would like to see it for some talking points e-mail me and I will send it to you.
Conor Dugan |
April 19, 2005 at 02:29 PM
The new Pope's books on the Spirit of the Liturgy and on the Eucharist are remarkably thoughtful and insightful.
No one can predict who he will perform as Pope based upon how he functioned in his position in the CDF. Perhaps the man can never be a tabula rasa, but at this point his papacy certainly is.
April 19, 2005 at 02:29 PM
That is interesting...and I don't think that the fact that something HAS been taught infallibly by the OUM would at all rule out an 'ex cathedra' statement, because the OUM is not always clear to everyone.
However, personally I don't see how the immorality of deliberately frustrating the life giving potential of the sexual act could NOT been infallibly taught by the OUM, since it has been taught always and everywhere. It was taught from the very beginning of the Church, has been taught ever since, and has been taught in every place. Even the Protestants did not question it until the 1930's.
Dave Mueller |
April 19, 2005 at 02:35 PM
Here's the RadTrad (schismatic?) take on the election: "Habet papam. They have a pope." See http://www.novusordowatch.org/archive.htm
T. Marzen |
April 19, 2005 at 02:35 PM
HABEO HABES HABET HABEMUS HABETUS....
Wouldn't that be Habent?
Susan Peterson |
April 19, 2005 at 02:44 PM
Sullivan and his emailers think that Pope Benedict XVI (that's fun to type for the first time!) is just a transitional pope until the Church figures out how to transform itself. The dissidents are telling themselves that Benedict will not live long (gee, isn't that charitable), and, when he's gone, the real business of updating and revamping Catholic morality and governance (ie, women/married priests) will begin. Isn't this the same belief they had about JP2? "Let's get through this pope, then the next will be the one to being the 'necessary ' reforms?" If it makes them feel better, oh, well.
April 19, 2005 at 02:47 PM
Amy's blog just got a very favorable mention on MSNBC's blog survey of the day, conducted by Jeff Jarvis of BuzzMachine. Also mentioned Relapsed Catholic as saying the election will "annoy all the right people."
Christopher Rake |
April 19, 2005 at 02:50 PM
Yikes, Mark Shea and Ron Reagan (and Kathy Shaidle and Jeff Jarvis) will be on the same MSNBC program later today.
Christopher Rake |
April 19, 2005 at 02:54 PM
My personal take on the "transitional" label (not necessarily what others mean by it, but how I see it) is that it's going to take some time for the Church to process exactly what the papacy of JPII has meant for it.
One really couldn't speak of "what sort of Church JPII left behind" until he actually left us.
In the meantime, perhaps the Cardinals thought it best that maintain status quo rather than, say, take a bold step like appointing a third-world or southern-hemisphere Pope whose very appointment would radically shake things up.
April 19, 2005 at 02:55 PM
Amy et al:
A counter-sound bite re his membership in the Hitler Jugend:
Had the Poles not stopped the Red Army at the gates of Warsaw in 1922 (correct me if I got the date wrong), Soviet Russia would have imposed Communism on Poland 20 years earlier and linked up with the Communist Germany that almost emerged afeter WWI. Thus, both young Karol and young Josef would have been Pioneers and Komsomoltsi.
Would that have made the "Progessives" happy?
April 19, 2005 at 02:58 PM
I don't necessarily disagree w/the general uses of "transitional" pope to digest what JP2 has given us. When people talk of a pope not living long, however, it seems a bit cold. Also, as I said, I think Sully et als mean transitional differently; just as a means to buy time to plan the changes that dissidents like Sully hope will be implemented by the next pope.
April 19, 2005 at 03:02 PM
I was hoping for Daneels or a South American, and was initially dismayed when Ratzinger's name was spoken on the balcony. But the more I read about him, the more I think the reactionaries are going to be sorely disappointed in this Pope. He is clearly NOT someone who hews to the party line on every issue, and he has even been accused of heresy by some American reactionaries in the past. He seems not to be too fond of what you might call "soupy Catholicism," the kind that focuses more on apparitions and weeping statues than on the words of Christ.
No matter what, after the long papacy of JPII, it will be a revelation to have a new Holy Father.
April 19, 2005 at 03:10 PM
Here is the link to the Anti Defamation League (ADL) article welcoming and praising Benedict XVI:
Among the statements: "Though as a teenager he was a member of the Hitler Youth, all his life Cardinal Ratzinger has atoned for the fact. In our years of working on improving Catholic-Jewish ties, ADL has had opportunities to work with Cardinal Ratzinger. We look forward to continuing that relationship."
April 19, 2005 at 03:11 PM
>>>The dissidents are telling themselves that Benedict will not live long (gee, isn't that charitable), and, when he's gone, the real business of updating and revamping Catholic morality and governance (ie, women/married priests) will begin.
So I guess it's too much to hope that the Call To Action crowd will do the honest thing and schism now.
In Jesu et Maria,
April 19, 2005 at 03:14 PM
Here's the odd part about that "wait 'till the next Pope" theory, an email posted on Sully's blog reads:
"To put a twist on the infamous Rumsfeld quote, you elect a pope with the Conclave you have, not the Conclave you'd like to have. In regards to this election, the Conclave that Western Catholics like me and thee had was an older, more conservative group appointed almost entirely by JPII to reflect his conservative views on doctrine and his populist-conservative views on political and social world issues."
Just where do they think a new crop of liberal electors will come from, if the current bunch are such arch-conservatives and the new ones will all be appointed by Pope Benedict?
It's telling that the author of this email describes himself not as liberal or progressive but rather as a "heterodox Catholic."
April 19, 2005 at 03:16 PM
The purpose of my recent USANow blog posting titled "Did the Pope Worship Mary?" was to counter the idea that Catholics, and specifically JP II, worshipped Mary. This applies to our terrific new pope, Benedict XVI as well.
In another post titled "Sweeping Changes with the New Pope?", I addressed the ludicrous idea that the new pope might bring with him new ideas about birth control and abortion. The Catholic Church will always acknowledge the sanctity of life, and the reproductive aspect of conjugal love. Adhering to these teachings, as Benedict XVI is sure to do, does not make one an "uncompromising conservative". It makes one simply a Catholic.
April 19, 2005 at 03:19 PM
Pope John XXIII was a "transitional" Pope elected just before he turned 77.
Obviously, his "transitional" papacy had very little impact.
Ever since "Humanae Vitae," encyclical of Pope Paul VI in 1968, liberal Catholics in the US have been hoping for another Pope to their liking, like their hero John XXIII. Their hero did not come with John Paul I, nor John Paul II. In my years back in the Catholic Church since 1998, I have heard so many say, "Just wait until after this Pope dies...." Now, they are already saying that about Pope Benedict XVI!
Really, I don't think it is just that we have the "wrong" Popes since 1963. And clearly many of these same folks think we had "wrong" Popes before Pope John XXIII (Pius XII, etc.) Rather, I think it is that many Catholics in the US just misunderstood Pope John XXIII, or maybe incorrectly "translated" him into the American social context of the 1960's. And they are still stuck there, on the one Pope they like.
Perhaps it is time to look both before and after Pope John XXIII, and realize that, by golly, the Deposit of the Faith, the Truth, was there before Pope John XXIII, and is still there now, and if they are waiting for another "1960's Pope," it will be a long wait.
Zhou De-Ming |
April 19, 2005 at 03:30 PM
Initial response to B16:
OMG! Another Catholic!
Julianne Wiley |
April 19, 2005 at 03:31 PM
He has even been accused of heresy by some American reactionaries in the past.
He seems not to be too fond of what you might call "soupy Catholicism," the kind that focuses more on apparitions and weeping statues than on the words of Christ.
1) Who hasn't?
2) Thank God!
April 19, 2005 at 03:59 PM
I'm told that Cardinal Ratzinger is a dedicated, hard-working man who makes do with a small staff (the kind of images conjured up in my mind by "The Holy Office" apparently are overblown in the extreme!). And personally, he lives very simply.
He published a book some years ago which Igatius picked up, "Memoirs," which I found a wonderful, simple book which I thought gave some real insights to his soul. I heartily recommend it. It was deeply interesting. I especially appreciated his expression of his regard for the traditional liturgy.
I also remember hearing that some years ago he introduced the custom of regular Holy Hours of Adoration with his CDF staff.
I'm just delighted with this choice, and grateful to God for His goodness to us.
Father Wilson |
April 19, 2005 at 04:08 PM
My favourite quote is Cardinal Ratzinger on the Abridged Version of Catechism :-
given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a "just war."
Yep he's the real McCoy allright.
Expect great things from this Pope.
Chris Sullivan |
April 19, 2005 at 04:20 PM
It's also interesting to read the postings of those who are concerned that the Church in the West is dying, and Her only hope is to embrace mondernism. As we can all clearly see, every single Protestant church that has embraced secular Americanism (for want of a better term) is just busting at the seams! Right?
Reading Andrew Sullivan is an exercise in frustration. Interesting that he has no comboxes....anyway, it is interesting that he had renounced the Catholic faith a couple years ago when it served his purposes, and now he embraces it again only to condemn it because - you guessed it - it serves his purposes. I wretch when I read his self-professed piety. Perhaps his time might better be spent before the Blessed Sacrament praying for his readership.
Chris Oles |
April 19, 2005 at 04:29 PM
In his 1987 book "Principles of Catholic Theology," Ratzinger said: "The real reception of the Council has not yet even begun. What devastated the Church in the decade after the Council was not the Council but the refusal to accept it.... The task is not, therefore, to suppress the Council but to discover the real Council and to deepen its true intention in the light of present experience. That means that there can be no return to the Syllabus,..."
Perhaps that's his game plan as Pope.
Sr Lorraine |
April 19, 2005 at 04:31 PM
Cardinal McCarrick on Pope Benedict XVI
April 19, 2005
Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick, Archbishop of Washington, spoke briefly from Rome this evening about the election of Pope Benedict XVI:
"With Catholics throughout the world, we rejoice at the election of Pope Benedict XVI. What an enormous privilege it was to be a part of his election. Since I've known Cardinal Ratzinger for many years, I was privileged to be able to greet an old friend as our new Holy Father.
"We can thank God for a brilliant theologian and a man who not only understands the theology of the Church, but lives and loves it, and will be a sure and faithful guide and shepherd for us all in the years ahead.
"I also thank all of the faithful who joined in prayer for the Cardinals during the conclave. Finally, we are grateful to the media for the great respect they have shown during this important time in the life of the Catholic Church."
Cornelius AMDG |
April 19, 2005 at 04:34 PM
How's this for a talking point?
ADL Welcomes Election of Cardinal Ratzinger as New Pope
New York, NY, April 19, 2005 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today welcomed the election of German Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger as the new Pope, Benedict XVI. Under his leadership in Germany and Rome, the Catholic Church made important strides in improving Catholic-Jewish relations and atoning for the sin of anti-Semitism. Cardinal Ratzinger has been a leader in this effort and has made important statements in the spirit of sensitivity and reconciliation with the Jewish people.
Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, issued the following statement:
We welcome the new Papacy of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. From the Jewish perspective, the fact that he comes from Europe is important, because he brings with him an understanding and memory of the painful history of Europe and of the 20th Century experience of European Jewry.
Having lived through World War II, Cardinal Ratzinger has great sensitivity to Jewish history and the Holocaust. He has shown this sensitivity countless times, in meetings with Jewish leadership and in important statements condemning anti-Semitism and expressing profound sorrow for the Holocaust. We remember with great appreciation his Christmas reflections on December 29, 2000, when he memorably expressed remorse for the anti-Jewish attitudes that persisted through history, leading to "deplorable acts of violence" and the Holocaust. Cardinal Ratzinger said: "Even if the most recent, loathsome experience of the Shoah (Holocaust) was perpetrated in the name of an anti-Christian ideology, which tried to strike the Christian faith at its Abrahamic roots in the people of Israel, it cannot be denied that a certain insufficient resistance to this atrocity on the part of Christians can be explained by an inherited anti-Judaism present in the hearts of not a few Christians."
Though as a teenager he was a member of the Hitler Youth, all his life Cardinal Ratzinger has atoned for the fact. In our years of working on improving Catholic-Jewish ties, ADL has had opportunities to work with Cardinal Ratzinger. We look forward to continuing that relationship.
The Anti-Defamation League, founded in 1913, is the world's leading organization fighting anti-Semitism through programs and services that counteract hatred, prejudice and bigotry.
April 19, 2005 at 04:43 PM
That would be your favorite, Chris. So many nukes were used in OEF and OIF.
It'll be interesting as the newer weapons continue to make possible more and more perfect restriction of their effects to combatant groups whether your reasoning is symmetric. :-)
April 19, 2005 at 04:44 PM
That would be your favorite, Chris. Look how many nukes were used in OEF, and OIF, after all.
April 19, 2005 at 04:45 PM
Sorry for the double.
April 19, 2005 at 04:46 PM
Dave Mueller wrote:
.... I don't see how the immorality of deliberately frustrating the life giving potential of the sexual act could NOT been infallibly taught by the OUM, since it has been taught always and everywhere.
This is probably true, but I know of two counter-arguments: (1) The argument of some theologians (including the majority of the birth control commission of 1966-68) is that chemical methods like the pill were too new for the claim of "always" to apply; (2) The argument of other theologians is that although this has always been taught, it has not necessarily always been taught in a definitive manner.
Does a universal teaching of all bishops have to be explicitly taught as being definitive by each of these bishops in order to be infallible? Lumen Gentium is unclear on this point. More liberal interpreters like Francis Sullivan and Richard Gaillardetz say yes. Ratzinger and Bertone say no.
.... I don't think that the fact that something HAS been taught infallibly by the OUM would at all rule out an 'ex cathedra' statement, because the OUM is not always clear to everyone.
This is certainly true. So I think Greeley got at least that point wrong; maybe what really happened was that JP2 was thinking of saying it was infallible by the OUM. Or maybe Greeley's sources were simply false.
Lawrence King |
April 19, 2005 at 05:13 PM
Pope Benedict on the Orthodox:
In his "Principles of Catholic Theology" (1987) He says that unity with the Orthodox should not demand that they accept any conception of papal primacy beyond that understood and lived in the first millenium. In turn, the Orthodox should be willing to not consider heretical the West's conception of the development of the petrine office since unity was broken.
I think those working for unity between East and West will be happy with Benedict XVI.
April 19, 2005 at 05:30 PM
The CBS Evening News reporter just said that Ratzinger supported denying communion to pro-choice politicians -- which he said means "denying salvation" to them.
April 19, 2005 at 05:48 PM
Regarding the ADL press release:
Generally good, except the part about his having "atoned" for his forced childhood enrollment in the Hitler Youth. The wrong tone completely. Ratzinger has nothing to "atone" for on that in that matter. He was 14, and was forced to join! Just as he was only 16 when conscripted into the Army, then he deserted at the risk of death if caught! Case closed. Will the manistream media ever get over this Ratzinger as Nazi nonsense!
April 19, 2005 at 07:56 PM
At 78 we can't expect that he will reign for much more than 20 years maximum and probably much less than that. So unlike JPII who was 58 and expected to reign a long time, Benedict is a transition between one long papacy and presumably the next long papacy. Saying that doesn't mean he won't have great influence or make major changes, but it is a reflection of the reality of his age. During his years in office he could, however, make huge changes including declaring Mary co-redemptrix, redefining the role of women (in either direction. Either giving them greater place outside of ordination or pulling back and declaring they cannot be Eucharistic ministers, lecteurs, altar servers etc.). He could eliminate the entire marriage tribunal system and say that only the Petrine and Pauline exceptions are valid. He could insist that everyone sign a statement of faith before receiving communion. He could excommunicate all Catholics who are in irregular marriages. There are many many things he could do.
Will he do all or even most of them? Probably not. But if he believes this is what God is calling him to do and if believes that it is God's will, we may hear a rapid series of pronouncements that will shape the Church in his precise view for the rest of time.
April 19, 2005 at 10:16 PM
Andrew Sullivan suggests that our pope was only elected because of JPII's rule-change about conclaves. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the 50% of votes rule change govern the next conclave, and not the most recent one, which retained the 2/3 of votes rule?
Oh, did anybody see that chief editor of Beliefnet on MSNBC? As I heard him, he thinks Benedict XVI holds to the Feenyite interpretation of the saying "extra ecclesiam nulla salus."
Kevin Jones |
April 19, 2005 at 10:33 PM
Kevin, the rule change governed this conclave. But 2/3 is still required for over a week (34 ballots, I think?), and after that the cardinals have the option of switching to majority vote.
Lawrence King |
April 20, 2005 at 02:55 AM
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.
(You can use HTML tags like <b> <i> and <ul> to style your text.)
(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)
Name is required to post a comment
Please enter a valid email address